After attacking the credibility of Tyler Hamilton and other
team-mates who said he did drugs, Armstrong and his attorneys
invoked their second perennial talking point:

What an appalling waste of the taxpayer's money and time to
investigate bike races that took place a decade ago.

The second sentiment in particular is usually received
sympathetically by Armstrong fans: Given the huge problems facing
the country, many people can imagine a better use of
prosecutorial resources than bike racing.

But neither of these talking points mean that Armstrong didn't
take drugs. And he no longer seems to be denying that he did (at
least not that we've seen). He's just shooting the messengers.

(Today's attack is on 60 Minutes: Armstrong's
attorneys have demanded an apology for 60 Minutes saying that
he failed a drug test back in 2001. If he didn't, in fact, fail
one, 60 Minutes should apologize. But not failing a drug
test and not doing drugs are two different things.)

Given Armstrong's two lines of public attack, it's worth asking
whether these are really the sentiments he would be invoking if
he has been telling the truth all along.

We doubt it.

If Armstrong really has never taken performance-enhancing drugs,
and never doped, we suspect his response to his teammates'
allegations (and all the allegations lobbed at him over the
years) would be something along these lines:

I have never done drugs or doped. Given the shocking
prevalence of drugs and doping in my sport, however, I'm not
surprised that everyone is wondering whether I did. So I welcome
the government's investigation into my cycling career, and I will
cooperate with it however I can. At this point, with so many
people having concluded that I am both a cheat and a liar, I
can't wait for this investigation to be concluded and my name to
be cleared.

That's what we think Armstrong and his attorneys would be saying
if he hadn't done drugs or doped. We have never once heard them
say anything like that.